Buddhist Canon by Freiberger

7/16/2019 Buddhist Canon by Freiberger

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/buddhist-canon-by-freiberger 1/23

THE BUDDHIST CANON

AND THE CANON OF BUDDHIST STUDIES

OLIVER FREIBERGER

In contemporary academia, the concept of a canon is rather unpopular 1.

The word ‘canon’2

reminds us of elites who use their power to suppressopposing views by labeling them as non-canonical and heretic. It reminds

us of colonialism and ‘Orientalism,’ of the ways Western scholars ‘can-

onized’ the knowledge of ‘the East.’ And it reminds us of a ‘classical’

canon in education that conservative instructors and politicians attempt to

save from postmodern randomness. In Buddhist Studies, such general

reservations about the canon appear to become manifest in two demands:

In our research, we must focus on sources other than the Buddhist canon;

and in teaching, we must abandon the inherited ‘canon’ of class readings,

which again consists mainly of Buddhist canonical texts, and must teach

contemporary Buddhist practice instead.

In this paper, I will reconsider those demands by reflecting upon the

Buddhist canon as a subject of research, and upon our own scholarly

canonizations, the secondary canon of Buddhist Studies. The first part of

the paper examines the role of the Buddhist canon in research and in

teaching, the trend towards non-canonical sources, and the current affec-

tion for contemporary practice. As a textual scholar who works with

canonical texts, I intend to point to some risks that are, in my view, inher-ent in that general trend. To corroborate my critique and to illustrate what

Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies

Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2004

1 Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the University of Bayreuth and at theUniversity of Texas at Austin in spring, 2004. I thank the participants of the subsequentdiscussions for their responses and, in particular, Janice Leoshko for her comments andvaluable suggestions.

2 The word ‘canon’ is derived from Greek kanon, “cane”, “ruler”, figurative: “rule”,“norm”, “model”. See for the etymology and historical development of the term Gerald T.

Sheppard, “Canon,” The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade, vol. 3 (New York:Macmillan, 1987), pp. 62-69.



I consider the value of canonical texts for scholarship, I will, in the second

part of the paper, examine one exemplary issue: the image of the laity in

early Buddhism. I intend to demonstrate that canonical texts are, in con-

trast to the common view, a rich source for current scholarly interests

(such as the issues of religious practice and diversity). I will argue that

the image of the canon as being consistent, one-dimensional, and purely

normative — an image that underlies the current rejection of canonical

texts — is to a large extent the product of a ‘canonization’ carried out by

earlier generations of scholars. Discussing further implications in the third

part of the paper, I will argue that by excluding the canon, Buddhist Stud-ies runs the risk of canonizing other sources for research and, at the same

time, enhances particularism in teaching. Rather, the opposite approach

appears to be useful: a roughly ‘canonized’ introductory education in

Buddhist Studies, spiced with selected data that are suitable for under-

mining simplification, and an attitude in research that is open for all kinds

of sources, including canonical texts.

1. The Buddhist Canon in Research and in Teaching

When scholars of religion apply the term ‘canon’ to a certain corpus

of texts, they usually wish to emphasize two aspects: its normative, author-

itative character on the one hand, and its fixed and standardized form on

the other 3. The latter feature is the result of a process of canonization. Gen-

erally speaking, this process begins when within a tradition certain insti-

tutions select a limited number of texts and define them as authoritative,

262 OLIVER FREIBERGER

3 Jonathan Z. Smith defines a canon broadly as “the arbitrary fixing of a limited num-ber of ‘texts’ as immutable and authoritative.” “Sacred Persistence: Toward a Redescrip-tion of Canon,” id., Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago/London:University of Chicago Press, 1982), pp. 36-52, here: 44. Gerald Sheppard describes thosetwo aspects as follows: “On the one hand, [the term ‘canon’] can be used to refer to arule, standard, ideal, norm, or authoritative office or literature, whether oral or written.On the other hand, it can signify a temporary or perpetual fixation, standardization,enumeration, listing, chronology, register, or catalog of exemplary or normative persons,places, or things. The former dimension emphasizes internal signs of an elevated status.The latter puts stress on the precise boundary, limits, or measure of what, from some pre-

understood standard, belongs within or falls outside of a specific ‘canon.’” Sheppard,“Canon,” p. 64.



that is, ‘canonical.’ Subsequently, those or other institutions will need to

protect and defend this canon4.

Following this definition, scholars of Buddhism are used to labeling

certain Buddhist text collections ‘canonical.’ I focus in this paper on the

so-called Pali canon of the Theravada school. Although little is known

about the formation of the texts after the death of the Buddha, scholarship

holds that for a couple of centuries, Buddhists transmitted the constantly

increasing text collection orally, until, according to the Theravada tradi-

tion, it was written down for the first time in Sri Lanka, in the 1st century

before the Common Era5. From the 5th century commentaries onwards,at the latest, both canonical features are observable: the Pali canon is

regarded as normative and authoritative, and its textual contents are defined

and fixed.

1.1. Leaving the Canon Behind: Alternative Sources for Research

From its very beginning, Western scholarship has focused on the Pali

canonical texts, assuming that historically they were the most reliable

source for reconstructing the life of the Buddha, his original teachings,

and the new religion’s early development. In recent decades, scholars

have raised new questions and brought up a number of critical method-

ological issues: the problem of the alleged objectivity of the scholar; the

THE BUDDHIST CANON AND THE CANON OF BUDDHIST STUDIES 263

4 According to Aleida and Jan Assmann, we can distinguish three tasks these institu-tions have to fulfill: censoring; maintaining the text; and maintaining its meaning ( Zen-

sur, Textpflege, and Sinnpflege). Censoring means delimitating the text from the extrane-ous and false; maintaining the text means immunization against change, the orthopraxy of language within the tradition; maintaining the meaning of the text means compensating thesemantic deficiencies of the orthopraxy of language, a phenomenon which is often mani-fest in commentaries of canonical texts. Aleida and Jan Assmann, “Kanon und Zensur,”Kanon und Zensur: Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation II , ed.Aleida and Jan Assmann (München: Fink, 1987), pp. 7-27. See also the articles in thesame volume by Alois Hahn, “Kanonisierungsstile,” pp. 28-37; and Carsten Colpe, “Sakrali-sierung von Texten und Filiationen von Kanons,” pp. 80-92.

5 Although it is likely that at this point, the Pali canon was more or less fixed, we canbe fully sure about its actual contents only from Buddhaghosa’s commentary in the 5th cen-tury onwards. Cf. K.R. Norman, “Buddhism and Canonicity,” id., A Philological Approach

to Buddhism: The Bukkyo Dend o Kyokai Lectures 1994 (London: SOAS, 1997); cf. also

Gregory Schopen, “Two Problems in the History of Indian Buddhism: The Layman/MonkDistinction and the Doctrines of the Transference of Merit,” StII 10 (1985), 9-47, here: 9f.



need for scholarly interpretation and creativity; the issue of evaluative

assessment and normativity; the disputed quest for the original intention

of a text’s author; the significance of politics and power; and, in partic-

ular, the role of the written text in general6. A considerable number of

scholars have become critical of the traditional, historical-philological

paradigm. Emphasizing the obvious multifaceted character of Buddhism

and the need for adequate ways to deal with its diversity, they suggest

methods other than philological (for example, anthropological, sociologi-

cal, and art historical methods), and approaches other than historical (such

as cross-cultural analysis, feminist criticism, deconstruction, and literarycriticism)7. The critique of the traditional historical-philological approach

concerns, of course, particularly its focus on canonical texts; scholars

tend to look for other meaning-producing forms of sources. In the words

of José Cabezón: “There is today a call for the increased investigation

of alternative semiotic forms — oral and vernacular traditions, epigra-

phy, ritual, patterns of social and institutional evolution, gender, lay and

folk traditions, art, archeology and architecture.”8

In the course of this trend, the role of the Pali canon in Buddhist Stud-

ies has been subject to critical examination. Charles Hallisey, for exam-

ple, has analyzed the way Western Buddhologists used to deal with it. He

points to the beginnings of Buddhist Studies and their typical 19 th cen-

tury historicist approach “with its split between older and later sources

and its positivistic concerns for origins.” This approach led scholars to

the attitude that unlike modern Buddhists, only Western scholars, due to

their knowledge of Pali, have access to ‘original’ Buddhism.9 Instead of


6 José Ignacio Cabezón has thoroughly examined these methodological issues in hisarticle “Buddhist Studies as a Discipline and the Role of Theory,” JIABS 18 (1995),pp. 231-268. As he convincingly demonstrates, the debate takes place between the two polesof positivist/objectivist and interpretivist/subjectivist/constructionist approaches.

7 Cf. Cabezón, “Buddhist Studies as a Discipline…,” pp. 238f. and 264f.8 Cf. Cabezón, “Buddhist Studies as a Discipline…,” pp. 262f.9 Charles Hallisey, “Roads Taken and Not Taken in the Study of Theravada Bud-

dhism,” Curators of the Buddha: The Study of Buddhism under Colonialism, ed. DonaldS. Lopez, Jr. (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1995), pp. 31-61, here: pp. 34-38. Trying to apply a one-sided concept of Orientalism to this issue, however, would betoo simple. As Hallisey observes, “there was something like a productive ‘elective affin-

ity’ between the positivist historiography of European Orientalism and Buddhist styles of self-representation” (p. 43); see also pp. 47-49. This is true also for the common usage of



continuing a scholarly tradition that focuses on the Pali canon, scholars

of Buddhism should examine, according to Hallisey, commentaries, sub-

commentaries, and in particular, local contexts and works composed in

vernacular languages. He sketches an “alternative historical paradigm

which will encourage us to expect meaning to be produced in local cir-

cumstances rather than in the origins of the tradition.”10 In Hallisey’s

view, this local production of meaning is of crucial interest for Buddhist

Studies, because it reveals the interaction between the text and its users

and is thus connected to the ‘real life’ of Buddhists much more closely

than the Pali canon is. Although not explicitly abandoning the canonicaltexts for research, Hallisey discourages from examining them. The Pali

canon appears as one among many representations of Buddhism, but as

a rather unexciting one.

1.2. Teaching Buddhism without a Canon: The Affection for Contempo-

rary Practice

It comes as no surprise that the focus on the Pali canon in research

caused an identical focus in teaching. Charles Hallisey remarks that “the

study of the Theravada became equated with the study of the Pali canon,

and it is still common for a student to finish a graduate program in Bud-

dhist Studies without ever having read a Theravadin commentarial text.”11


the commentaries of the Pali canon; emulating Buddhist tradition, scholars of Buddhismhave used them merely as a tool for understanding the canonical text but not as a religiousexpression of its own right that was composed centuries after the canon itself. In additionto that, several other ways of emulating the Buddhist tradition are observable. Luis Gómezexamines similarities in the philological and the scholastic approaches, in the doctrinalcommitment, and in the notion of history (decay or culmination). Luis Gómez, “UnspokenParadigms: Meandering through the Metaphors of a Field,” JIABS 18 (1995), pp. 183-230.For the dialectics of orientalism, occidentalism, ‘auto-occidentalism,’ and ‘auto-orientalism’in (the study of) Asian religions cf. also the recent volume, Religion im Spiegelkabinett:

Asiatische Religionsgeschichte im Spannungsfeld zwischen Orientalismus und Okziden-

talismus, ed. Peter Schalk, Max Deeg, Oliver Freiberger, Christoph Kleine, Acta Univer-sitatis Upsaliensis: Historia Religionum 22 (Uppsala: University of Uppsala, 2003); for an outline of this volume see my note, “Religion in mirrors: Orientalism, Occidentalism,and Asian Religions,” Journal of Global Buddhism 4 (2003), pp. 9-17 (online: http://www.globalbuddhism.org).

10 Hallisey, “Roads Taken…,” pp. 50-53.11 Hallisey, “Roads Taken…,” p. 44.



The text selections in ‘classical’ anthologies of Buddhist Studies confirm

Hallisey’s impression. Concerning Theravada Buddhism, those compila-

tions contain passages taken almost exclusively from the Pali canon12.

Moreover, their editors seem to agree upon what the ‘significant’ topics

were and, correspondingly, what text passages to select13. Roughly, the

topics are: the early life of Siddhattha Gotama, his ascetic years, his

awakening, and his death; the ‘sermon of Benares’, the Four Noble Truths

and the Middle Way, the doctrines of dependent origination, anatt a, the

five khandhas, karma and rebirth, meditation and nibbana, general ethi-

cal principles, and the basic rules of the sangha. These topics reflectthe traditional classification of the ‘three jewels’ (buddha, dhamma,

sangha); their selection is, certainly not by chance14, largely in accor-

dance with the later commentarial tradition of the Theravada school. The

text passages selected for anthologies correspond to these topics. Although

being not entirely identical, the compilations constitute a largely inter-

secting set of texts. The process of selecting topics and texts can be viewed

as a form of canonization.

Taking the anthologies as a means (or an expression) of teaching Bud-

dhism, we may state that the discipline of Buddhist Studies has created

its own teaching canon — a secondary canon, as it were, extracted from

the primary one. This secondary canon possesses the general features:

it is authoritative, and it is, to a certain extent, fixed; the fact that the

anthologies contain very similar text collections indicates that the academic

community has ‘observed and protected’ the selection15.


12 To a much lesser extent, they also contain sections from quasi-canonical works suchas the Milindapañha or the Visuddhimagga.

13 Examples are: Buddhism in Translations: Passages Selected from the Budhist Sacred

Books and Translated from the Original Pali into English, by Henry Clarke Warren (Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1915); The Living Thoughts of Gotama the Buddha,presented by Ananda K. Coomaraswamy and I.B. Horner (London/Edinburgh: Morrisonand Gibb, 1948); Buddhism: A Religion of Infinite Compassion — Selections from Buddhist

Literature, ed. Clarence H. Hamilton (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1952); The Teach-

ings of the Compassionate Buddha, ed. E.A. Burtt (New York: Mentor, 1955); Buddhist

Texts through the Ages, ed. Edward Conze et al. (Oxford: Cassirer, 1954); The Wisdom of

Buddhism, ed. Christmas Humphreys (New York: Random House, 1961).14 Cf. above, note 9.15 Below, I point to canonical texts that were omitted in this canonization process.

While my example concerns the image of the Buddhist laity, another example would be



In recent times, the textual focus in teaching has shifted. One example

of a new type of anthology is the voluminous collection Buddhism in

Practice, edited by Donald Lopez, published in 199516. All but one of the

Theravada texts in this volume are non-canonical, some even written by

contemporary Buddhists17. Corresponding to the book’s title, all texts

concern in one way or the other Buddhist practice; they deal, for exam-

ple, with the consecration ritual of Buddha images, with meditation, or

donation. As an example of anthologies used in teaching, this compilation

shows that the criterion for selecting texts is not their canonical status

anymore but their significance for Buddhist practice.A recent collection of essays on “Teaching Buddhism in the West”

places strong emphasis on practice, as well18. In its first chapter, Frank

Reynolds criticizes the usual ‘Introduction to Buddhism’ course. He

describes it as “the kind of survey course that begins with (…) the his-

torical life and teachings of Gautama Buddha, (…) moves through a

rapid-fire treatment of some 2500 years of Buddhist intellectual and social

history (…), and finally concludes with an equally rapid-fire survey of

contemporary Buddhism in various countries around the world.”19

As examples of an “alternative approach that will be appropriate and

effective within a postmodern liberal arts curriculum,” he suggests

three types of courses on Buddhism, two of which are significant for our


the Vinaya passages that I.B. Horner refused to translate in her translation of theVinayapi† aka. These passages, which deal with sexual issues, appear, in her words, “unsuitablefor incorporation in a translation designed principally for Western readers,” because of “theoutspokenness and crudeness” they contain. The Book of the Discipline (Vinaya-Pi† aka),transl. I.B. Horner, vol. 1 (Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1992 [1938]), p. 197. Those passageshave been translated recently; see Petra Kieffer-Pülz, “Para jika 1 and Sanghadisesa 1:Hitherto Untranslated Passages from the Vinayapi† aka of the Theravadins,” Traditional

South Asian Medicine 6 (2001), pp. 62-84.16 Buddhism in Practice, ed. Donald S. Lopez, Jr. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univer-

sity Press, 1995). Cf. also John S. Strong, The Experience of Buddhism: Sources and Inter-

pretations, 2nd ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2002).17 The only canonical text in the book, the Gotami -apad ana, is little known and has

been translated into a Western language here for the first time. Buddhism in Practice…,pp. 113-138.

18 Teaching Buddhism in the West: From the Wheel to the Web, ed. Victor Sogen Hori,Richard P. Hayes, James Mark Shields (London/New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002).

19 Frank E. Reynolds, “Teaching Buddhism in the Postmodern University: Understan-ding, Critique, Evaluation,” Teaching Buddhism in the West…, pp. 3-16, here: p. 8.



considerations20. First, he proposes a concept for an introductory under-

graduate course that deals not with the foundations of Buddhism and its

historical development but with practices of contemporary Buddhists in

Asia and North America. The goal of such a course is “to introduce

students to a broadly representative variety of the real worlds of real

Buddhists who are involved in real Buddhist practices that generate real

Buddhist experiences.”21 Reynolds’ second concept of an advanced course

comprises a canonical text, but focuses on the “ways in which the text

has been received and put to use in the tradition.”22 It is obvious that in

this article, Reynolds does not attach great importance to the Pali canonfor teaching purposes. His introductory course contains no canonical text

whatsoever, and his advanced course focuses not on the content of the

selected canonical text, but on its role in practice.

The approach underlying Reynolds’ concepts seems to represent a

general trend. In the volume on Teaching Buddhism in the West , the

authors suggest a number of teaching methods, all of which focus not on

canonical texts but on other religious expressions, particularly on reli-

gious practice. For their class readings, they select either Buddhist texts

that deal with — or are used in — practice, or scholarly articles describ-

ing contemporary forms of it23. Canonical texts are of interest only as far

as they have a role in practice.


20 The third course deals with the establishment and development of Buddhism in the Westand the development of Buddhist Studies. Reynolds, “Teaching Buddhism…,” pp. 9-11.Reynolds describes his vision of postmodern liberal education in detail in his article “Recon-structing Liberal Education: A Religious Studies Perspective,” Beyond the Classics? Essays

in Religious Studies and Liberal Education, ed. Frank E. Reynolds, Sheryl L. Burkhalter (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 3-18.

21 Reynolds, “Teaching Buddhism…,” pp. 7-9, here: p. 9. One decade ago, Reynolds’brief description of an introductory course had included contemporary practice as merelyone among several elements. See his chapter on “Introducing Buddhism” in Teaching the

Introductory Course in Religious Studies: A Sourcebook , ed. Mark Juergensmeyer (Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 71-77.

22 The introduction of this course includes a “concise consideration of sub-topics” (!)such as textual criticism, the composition and compilation of the text, its canonical status,and its form and content. Reynolds, “Teaching Buddhism…,” p. 10.

23 See particularly Todd T. Lewis’ article, “Representations of Buddhism in Under-

graduate Teaching: The Centrality of Ritual and Story Narratives,” Teaching Buddhism inthe West…, pp. 39-56.



This current trend covers up for another approach, the integration of

practice into teaching. The volume Teaching Buddhism in the West also

contains the article “Moving Beyond the ‘ism’: A Critique of the Objec-

tive Approach to Teaching Buddhism” by O’Hyun Park, Professor of

Religion at Appalachian State University24. Park criticizes what he calls

objective studies of Buddhism, which “are conditioned by occidental or

provincial patterns of thought and arbitrarily limited methodologies.

It is typical of occidentals as well as of many contemporary Buddhists

to wish to teach Buddhism by means of scientific understandings of

Buddhist ideas. These objective studies of Buddhism fail to transmit theliving essence of Buddhism, and in consequence, those whose approach

is purely of this sort may conclude that Buddhism at its best is merely

a form of psychology and has little to do with religious life.”25 Park sug-

gests a different method of teaching Buddhism. The teacher, to begin

with, must be a seeker him- or herself, and the student must be willing

to find a spiritual companion. Then meditation must be included in teach-

ing. Park states: “One must first be still in order to teach and learn

Buddhism. In no other way can its essence truly be known or shown. Seen

from this point of view, teaching and learning Buddhism, if it is not

filtered by meditation, is not worthy of attention.”26 The goal of his

method is “to introduce students to the Buddha’s world and to help them

be engaged in the process of moving in that direction themselves. In the

process, the spirit of Buddhism may rub off on them. I personally do not

know what in the process of teaching Buddhism has rubbed off on me,

but I can only hope that whatever it is can be passed on to my students.”27

When using this way of teaching, Park gets mixed responses. He admits:

“At times I am informed that my lectures suggest a dogmatic affirmation.”His reaction to this critique reads: “This is only because I have tem-

porarily been carried away by my deeper bias in the area. However, that

this discussion of non-duality may lead students to re-examine their own


24 O’Hyun Park, “Moving Beyond the ‘ism’: A Critique of the Objective Approach toTeaching Buddhism,” Teaching Buddhism in the West…, pp. 57-68.

25 Park, “Moving Beyond the ‘ism’…,” p. 67.26 Park, “Moving Beyond the ‘ism’…,” p. 59 (italics in the original).27 Park, “Moving Beyond the ‘ism’…,” p. 68.



approach to their lives and to enlarge their world is for me a sufficient

justification for teaching it. A fair number of students have been very

appreciative.”28

Given this attitude, it is particularly interesting to learn about the texts

Park uses for teaching. He writes: “For a text as a proverbial finger point-

ing to the moon, I have chosen my own translation of a sixteenth-century

Buddhist text written by Xishan, a Korean Zen master. (…) Xishan made

a substantial effort not only to grasp the essence of Buddhism, but also

in most cases to make it relevant to the breadth of human existential

awareness. In my judgement, this text warrants use as an alternative tomost current texts that are based upon a widespread unawareness of the

central thrust of Buddhist religiosity, a deficiency which may be related

to long engrained patterns of dualistic thought.”29 Park selects this text

because in his view, it is suitable for grasping “the essence” of Bud-

dhism. He rejects the canonical texts not because of their normativity

and their distance from current Buddhist practice, nor because they fail

to represent religious diversity, but because for him, they are less suitable

for revealing Buddhism’s “central thrust.”

It is obvious that this is not an academic or historical, but a religious

criterion. Park’s teaching method is thus a form not of academic educa-

tion but of religious instruction. This example points to the important fact

that many Western scholars of Buddhism are committed Buddhists them-

selves, so-called ‘scholar-practitioners.’30 Although this is a well-known

fact, there is still too little reflection about its implications for research

and for teaching. In recent years, some scholars came up with ideas for a

new sub-discipline of Buddhist Studies, called “Buddhist Theology.” This

discipline, modeled after modern academic Christian Theology, would bea home for Buddhist scholars who stand normatively in their tradition

and who, by using Western scholarly methods, critically reflect upon this


28 Park, “Moving Beyond the ‘ism’…,” p. 62.29 Park, “Moving Beyond the ‘ism’…,” p. 63.30 Cf. Charles S. Prebish, “Buddhist Studies in the Academy: History and Analysis”,

Teaching Buddhism in the West…, pp. 17-36, here: pp. 21-27; Cabezón, “Buddhist Stud-ies as a Discipline…;” Gómez, “Unspoken Paradigms…;” Malcolm David Eckel, “The

Ghost at the Table: On the Study of Buddhism and the Study of Religion,” JAAR 62 (1994),pp. 1085-1110.



tradition31. This interesting development can be a topic for research in itself,

including the question whether it will be possible to retain the distinction

between the “theological” reflections of this new discipline and the empir-

ical approach of Buddhist Studies as part of the academic study of reli-

gion. Victor Hori supposes that we may encounter a separation into two

disciplines, the “theological” and the academic study of Buddhism32. This

would equal the separation of Christian theology and the academic study

of religion ( Religionswissenschaft ). As the discussions are structurally sim-

ilar (including well-known arguments, for example against alleged neutral

scholarship), this new development may benefit from the long-lasting andongoing debate between Christian theology and the study of religion33.

O’Hyun Park’s approach, however, can hardly be considered an exam-

ple of Buddhist Theology in the sense of critical, academic reflection.

He uses postmodern and postorientalist arguments as a justification for

propagating what he considers the “essence” of Buddhism, which is based

upon his own translation of a sixteenth-century Zen text from Korea.

2. Reconsidering the Value of Canonical Texts

Given this trend of dissociating from the idea of a canon, what is the

future perspective of Buddhist Studies? Should researchers abandon the


31 Cf. the essays in Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars, ed. Roger R. Jackson, John J. Makransky (Richmond: Curzon, 2000), particu-larly the contributions by John Makransky, “Contemporary Academic Buddhist Theology:Its Emergence and Rationale,” pp. 14-21, and José Ignacio Cabezón, “Buddhist Theologyin the Academy,” pp. 25-52.

32

Victor So

gen Hori, “Introduction,”Teaching Buddhism in the West…

, pp. ix-xxv.Malcolm David Eckel views such a distinction critically; cf. his “The Ghost at the Table…”33 I am aware of the fact that differences between academic disciplines are discernable

in normative and programmatic concepts rather than in actual practice. While the individ-ual scholar could have more in common with one from another ‘discipline’ than with manyof her or his own profession, it is programmatic concepts prescribing how scholars of adiscipline should work that construct this discipline. Such concepts describe the boundariesof the subject matter, the theory, and the methods; within one discipline, they tend to becontroversial and to compete with other concepts. Nevertheless, the continuous debate ona discipline’s identity is necessary for self-reflection; inter-, cross-, or transdisciplinarityis possible only if there are boundaries one can cross. Cf. my “Ist Wertung Theologie?Beobachtungen zur Unterscheidung von Religionswissenschaft und Theologie,” Die Iden-

tität der Religionswissenschaft: Beiträge zum Verständnis einer unbekannten Disziplin, ed.Gebhard Löhr (Frankfurt/M. et al.: Peter Lang, 2000), pp. 97-121.



primary canon of ancient, normative, and standardized texts, and focus

on the local/present productions of meaning instead? Should instructors

abandon the secondary canon, and focus on the contemporary practice or

the ‘central thrust’ of Buddhism? Or is working with canonical texts and

using a secondary canon for teaching still justifiable? I think it is. In the

following sections of the paper, I intend to illustrate what I consider the

significance of canonical texts for research and teaching. I start off by

presenting one example: the image of the laity in early Buddhism.

According to the accounts given in ‘classical’ anthologies and in

most textbooks, early Buddhist laymen and laywomen can be describedas follows. Together with Buddhist monks and nuns (bhikkhus and

bhikkhuni s), male and female laypeople (upasakas and upasik as) form

the fourfold Buddhist community. They provide the former with clothes,

food, lodging, and medicine, and they lead a moral life according to the

pañcasi la, that is, they refrain from harming living creatures, from steal-

ing, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from consuming

intoxicants. Unlike members of the sangha, lay people are per se inca-

pable of higher spiritual accomplishment. Therefore, they do not strive

for liberation from the cycle of rebirth and will not attain this state.

Their (inferior) goal is rebirth in a heavenly world, and thus they do not

engage in meditative practices but focus on morality and generosity. Par-

ticularly by donating gifts to the “unsurpassable field of merit,” that is

the Buddhist sangha, they can accumulate merit that will cause a better

rebirth.

As mentioned before, this roughly sketched image of the laity is preva-

lent in ‘classical’ textbooks and anthologies. Denying the fact that this

image is common also in many sections of the Pali canon would be absurd.But claiming that it is the only view traceable in the texts would be equally

incorrect. When examining not only the ‘secondary canon’ preserved in

modern anthologies but the entire doctrinal section of the Pali canon, the

Suttapi† aka, one discovers a number of passages in which the authors

create an image of laypeople that differs immensely from the one sketched

above.34 Here, the laity appears as a group not only serving the sangha


34 For the following, see my Der Orden in der Lehre: Zur religiösen Deutung desSangha im frühen Buddhismus (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000), pp. 140-212; an English



but also observing and controlling the behavior of monks and nuns. Those

accounts portray laypeople as self-confident persons who have the abil-

ity to assess the ethical and ‘spiritual’ status of the recipient of their gifts.

They do not trust the promise that the best recipient is, by way of ordi-

nation, the Buddhist monk or nun; they reject the concept of the sangha

as a field of merit that is, by definition, unsurpassable. Instead they indi-

vidually select worthy recipients who lead a moral life and who are ‘spir-

itually’ advanced, because they believe that for gaining religious merit,

the individual ‘spiritual’ status of the recipient weighs more than the per-

son’s status of being an ordained member of the sangha. How to accu-mulate merit is a serious issue for them, because it may cause rebirth in

a heavenly world. In fact, a close look reveals that in the canonical texts,

rebirth in heaven appears as a Buddhist soteriological goal independent

from nibbana (Skt. nirva∞a). The two goals rarely appear in the same

context; only a few theological passages link them and declare nibbana

the superior one. Reportedly, members of the sangha strive for rebirth in

heaven, too35. On the other hand, there are many accounts of laypersons

receiving instructions into the most complex issues of Buddhist doctrine

and attaining certain trance states. Some laypersons, the texts state, have

even gained liberating insight and nibbana.

Considering these accounts, we must put the clear division between

members of the sangha and laypeople into perspective; members of both

groups strive for — and attain — both goals, rebirth in heaven and nib-

bana. The clear division of the groups appears as an idea belonging to

an institutionalistic concept of the Buddhist sangha. A close view demon-

strates that a different, rather individualistic, concept is just as common

in the canonical texts. Due to the specific scope of earlier generations of


summary of major arguments in Oliver Freiberger, “Profiling the Sangha: Institutionaland Non-Institutional Tendencies in Early Buddhist Teachings,” Marburg Journal of Reli-

gion 5 (2000) (online: http://www.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/ freiberger.html). Cf. also Jeffrey Samuels, “Views of Householders and Lay Disciples inthe Sutta Pi† aka: A Reconsideration of the Lay/Monastic Opposition,” Religion 29 (1999),pp. 231-241.

35 Cf. for this issue Oliver Freiberger, “Salvation for the Laity? Soteriological Conceptsin Early and Modern Theravada Buddhism”, Stvdia Asiatica 2 (2001), pp. 29-38; id., “‘Ein

Vinaya für Hausbewohner’? Norm und Praxis der Laienanhänger im frühen Buddhismus,”forthcoming.



scholars, Buddhist textbooks — and scholarship at large — rarely take

notice of this latter concept with regard to the laity.

For the considerations about the canon in Buddhist Studies, we can

draw three major conclusions from this example. The first is that the

Pali canon is not homogeneous. A canon’s general feature of being author-

itative and normative does not presuppose homogeneity of its contents.

On the contrary, it seems that oftentimes, heterogeneity of the canon

contributes much to the success of a religion; the more views and practices

can be legitimized by passages from the canon, the more worldviews

are represented, and the more people can feel at home in that religioustradition. It becomes apparent that the secondary canon Buddhist schol-

ars have created is not representative. Already in the early canonical Pali

texts, we discover a broad spectrum of attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

Thus the reference to diversity in Buddhism, a point Frank Reynolds

emphasizes when focusing on contemporary Buddhist contexts, can hardly

be an argument for dismissing the canonical texts.

The second conclusion we can draw is that although canonical texts

are generally normative, they do not only contain theoretical reflections

of elite, ivory-tower theologians but also religious practice. Certainly,

trying to entirely reconstruct social reality in Ancient India would be

hopeless, but to a certain extent, detecting religious practices in nor-

mative texts is possible36. Although far from what ethnographic field-

work could achieve, such findings show that ‘practice’ appears frequently

in the canonical texts. Therefore, the distinction between norm and prac-

tice does not necessarily correspond to the distinction between historical-

philological method and socio-ethnographic method, let alone to the dis-

tinction between past and present. Actually, the often-felt rift between


36 One issue of our example was the question whether the laypeople trust in the merit-promising institution of the sangha and thus act accordingly, or whether they select ‘worthy’recipients and, furthermore, strive for their personal spiritual development and liberation.Examining the respective passages more closely, we could detect a number of concrete prac-tices of Buddhist laypeople. For this issue, cf. Oliver Freiberger, “‘Ein Vinaya für Haus-bewohner’?…” Jan Nattier develops methods for extracting historical data from a normativeBuddhist source in her recent book, A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according

to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparip ® ccha) (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2003),

pp. 63-69; see also Christoph Kleine, “Der Kampf der Normen und die Suche nach demReferenten,” forthcoming.



the canon and practice seems to be due largely to our own one-dimen-

sional construction of ‘canonical Buddhism.’37 Thus, a focus on practice

in Buddhist Studies need not lead to the abandonment of canonical texts.

A third conclusion we can draw from the example is that although West-

ern scholars have been examining the canon for more than a century, there

is still a lot to discover. We must not believe that the great scholars of our

field have said everything there is to say about the Pali canon38. Rather, with

their ‘protestant’ view on Buddhism, some played down the rather ‘catholic’

practice of accumulating merit39. Re-reading the same old texts can lead us

to new and surprising insights, which broaden our horizons and, at thesame time, highlight the specific scope of earlier generations of scholars40.

The example shows that canonical texts are heterogeneous and diverse,

that they contain both norms and practices, and that re-reading them helps

us understand our own inherited presuppositions. With this conclusion,

I do not intend to revive the outdated view that the Pali canon is a source

sufficient for all interests and questions of modern Buddhist Studies. But

it is apparent that there is more to gain from the canon than some Bud-

dhist scholars, who focus on contemporary practice, might expect41.


37 Cf. Martin Southwold, Buddhism in Life: The Anthropological Study of Religion and

the Sinhalese Practice of Buddhism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1983),esp. pp. 202-212.

38 Certainly, this point, just as other arguments in the present paper, refers not only tocanonical texts but to historical sources in general; a discussion of the general value of the his-torical approach, however, would go beyond the scope of a paper that focuses on the canon.

39 Cf. Gregory Schopen, “Archeology and Protestant Presuppositions in the Study of Indian Buddhism,” History of Religions 31 (1991), pp. 1-23; see also Oliver Freiberger,“Werke, Gute I: Religionsgeschichtlich,” Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. 35 (Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 2003), pp. 623-625.

40 Gregory Schopen, who is otherwise well-known for challenging the traditional viewof Buddhologists by referring to other sources, such as inscriptions and archaeologicalaccounts, has also convincingly shown how we can come to new conclusions by readingthe Pali canonical texts with a fresh and critical question. Cf. Gregory Schopen, “Monksand the Relic Cult in the Maha parinibbanasutta: An Old Misunderstanding in Regard toMonastic Buddhism”, From Beijing to Benares: Essays on Buddhism and Chinese Reli-

gion in Honour of Prof. Jan Yün-Hua, ed. Koichi Shinohara and Gregory Schopen(Oakville: Mosaic Press, 1991), pp. 187-201.

41 Cf. also the considerations in Jonathan S. Walters, “Suttas as History: Four Approaches

to the Sermon on the Noble Quest (Ariyapariyesanasutta)”, History of Religions 38 (1998),pp. 247-284.



3. Implications for Research and Teaching

3.1. The Fundamental Equality of Sources for Research

The discussion about ‘Orientalism’ has helped Buddhist scholars

develop a greater sensitivity of the fact that some ancestors in the field

had certain presuppositions and motives that were determined by colonial

interests, by the ‘protestant’ view on Buddhism, by their personal religious

commitments and cultural biases, and so forth. Donald Lopez, Charles

Hallisey, Luis Gómez, Gregory Schopen, Janice Leoshko, and others have

provided substantial analyses of this issue42. Some scholars of earlier gen-erations believed that the only appropriate way of examining Buddhism

is to turn to its most ancient texts while neglecting later, alleged degen-

erate developments. Modern scholarship rightly opposes this implicit

canonization. Presumably, most of today's scholars would agree that there

should be no restriction whatsoever as to what texts or religious expres-

sions to select for research — so long as one is able to explain why the

respective source lies within the scope of Buddhist Studies. If we thus

agree that as a matter of principle, all sources have, as religious expres-sions, the same value for research, then a fixed secondary canon must

not exist. What follows is that a canonical text, as one particular type of

religious expression, has — on principle — no lesser value for research

than contemporary ritual practice has. As a modern ritual handbook in a

local context has its particular significance and meaning within a religious

tradition, ancient canonical texts have theirs, too.

In the “alternative historical paradigm” Charles Hallisey envisages,

Buddhist scholars are encouraged to “expect meaning to be produced in

local circumstances rather than in the origins of the tradition” (my empha-

sis)43. In her response, Jan Nattier rightly remarks that “meaning is also


42 Cf., for example, the volume Curators of the Buddha: The Study of Buddhism under

Colonialism, ed. Donald S. Lopez, Jr. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), whichincludes Hallisey’s before-mentioned article, and the review essay by Jan Nattier, “BuddhistStudies in the Post-Colonial Age,” JAAR 65 (1997), pp. 469-485; Schopen, “Archeologyand Protestant Presuppositions…;” Gómez, “Unspoken Paradigms…;” Janice Leoshko,Sacred Traces: British Explorations of Buddhism in South Asia (Burlington: Ashgate,

2003); cf. also Eckel, “The Ghost at the Table…”43 Hallisey, “Roads Taken…,” pp. 50-53.



produced at the origins of the tradition (which, of course, had its own

local circumstances), as well as at every other point along the historical

continuum.”44 Hallisey’s “alternative paradigm” is not identical with but

corresponds to an attitude fairly popular in current studies of culture: the

view that local, vernacular, non-canonical, sub-altern, and/or contempo-

rary religious expressions are, as topics of research, of somewhat higher

value than canonical texts. It is beyond doubt that these issues had been

neglected in the past, and that studying them thoroughly is imperative.

But there is a risk of falling into another trap: assuming that now the

single appropriate way of examining Buddhism is the analysis of contemporary practice in local contexts. It seems crucial not to create a

hierarchy in values that entails an exclusion of canonical texts from

research. An implicit canonization of that kind would resemble the way

earlier generations excluded non-canonical religious expressions45.

Beside the fundamental insight that a scholarly canonization which

excludes the Buddhist canon is methodologically unacceptable, it seems

that the Buddhist canon remains, as I hope to have shown by the example

of the early Buddhist laity, a rich source for the study of religion46. Today,

Buddhist Studies has not only expanded its scope in terms of topics for

research, it also approaches its sources (including canonical texts) with

questions different from those of the past. Such questions, and nothing else,

should determine the criteria for selecting appropriate sources and methods47.

3.2. The Significance of Canonization for Teaching Buddhism

Is this fundamental freedom to select sources equally applicable in the

realm of teaching? To begin with, it seems helpful to view introductory


44 Nattier, “Buddhist Studies in the Post-Colonial Age,” p. 472.45 Interestingly, the reservations about scholarly canonization appear to be much less

pronounced when it comes to modern and contemporary texts. Cf. a recent collection of writings of modern Buddhists, the title and subtitle of which are telling: A Modern Bud-

dhist Bible: Essential Readings from East and West , ed. Donald S. Lopez (Boston: Bea-con Press, 2002). A “bible” is a canon par excellence, and preserving the “essence” isthe most central objective of canonization.

46 Besides, canon and exegesis are interesting topics also for comparative analysis; cf.

Smith, “Sacred Persistence…”47 Cf. Nattier, “Buddhist Studies in the Post-Colonial Age,” pp. 483f.



and advanced courses separately. The advanced course deals with specific

texts and contexts the instructor is familiar with; in these courses, students

begin to specialize in certain areas of Buddhism. For the introductory

course, I will consider two concepts: the new one suggested by Frank

Reynolds, which deals exclusively with contemporary practice in Asia

and North America; and the conventional survey course with its outline

of Buddhist history.

The strongest point of Reynolds’ concept is its significance for liberal

education: undergraduate students, especially those who take only one

course in Buddhism, will get an impression of Buddhism as it is practicedin the world they live in. I agree that integrating contemporary practice

in the syllabus is of utmost importance. But narrowing the course con-

tents down to current religious practice does not seem to be useful. Luis

Gómez has convincingly argued that in Western education, the focus on

practice in Buddhism is not accompanied by a parallel focus on practice

in Western culture48. He states that “an exaggerated inflation of the ‘field’

approach to Buddhism that excludes the textual tradition and the canons

that guided that tradition may work in support of the exoticization of

Buddhism, reinforce its alterity, and reinforce the perception among our

students and the public at large that Buddhism is only a curiosity, and

certainly not comparable to the well ordered and well-demonstrated

products of our own culture.”49 He continues by saying that “the ‘method-

ological’ exclusion of the textual tradition leads to (…) the questionable

assumption that textual traditions and textual elites are entities separate

from the living traditions and the non-elite groups with which they obvi-

ously interact.”50

Moreover, the spread of Reynolds’ concept would affect the conformityand comparability of undergraduate education in Buddhism. The texts he

selects for his introductory course deal with specific practices at certain


48 “The presentation of Buddhism in the classroom as something occurring only in apractice without canonical benchmarks may be more corrosive than one can perceive onfirst blush — after all, this degree of secularization and devaluation of the book is notaccompanied by a parallel secularization and devaluation of the Great Books of our ownculture.” Gómez, “Unspoken Paradigms…,” p. 205.

49 Gómez, “Unspoken Paradigms…,” p. 205.50 Gómez, “Unspoken Paradigms…,” p. 206.



places; for example, image consecration and village rituals in Thailand,

the ordination of novices in Korea, or healing rituals in Sri Lanka51. Obvi-

ously, Reynolds does not intend to ‘canonize’ these specific contexts of

practice. In consequence, every instructor of Buddhism will make his or

her own selection of contemporary contexts for their classes. Students of

different universities will gain close insights into those respective contexts

but will lack a common, basic knowledge of Buddhism. Over time, basic

agreements will begin to crumble — a process that reinforces fragmen-

tation and an anything-goes attitude that makes it increasingly difficult to

assess and judge each other’s work.One, already tangible, product of such an anything-goes attitude is

O’Hyun Park’s approach. Blaming Western “occidental” scholars for their

“dualistic” view, he uses post-orientalist arguments to justify his teach-

ing method and the selection of texts that allegedly reveal the ‘essence’

of Buddhism best. Defining the ‘essence of Buddhism’ is, however, a reli-

gious act; in Buddhist history, Buddhists have done it in manifold ways.

Due to this historical perspective, academic scholarship cannot determine

the ‘essence’ of a religion. Thus, undisturbed by the academic commu-

nity, Park gives religious instruction in the cloak of academic teaching,

and his students may get the impression that Xishan’s sixteenth century

Zen interpretation is all they should know about Buddhism. The fact that

the editors accepted Park’s paper for a volume on Teaching Buddhism in

the West shows that his approach is considered by some a legitimate

option for teaching. Ironically, the current trend of abandoning the idea

of a canon, of emphasizing religious practice, and of stressing the “variety

of the real worlds of real Buddhists” (Reynolds), gives free rein to

approaches that, for their part, reject diversity and reinforce particularism.Therefore, using a secondary canon in teaching still makes sense. As

it is unlikely that we might agree upon a binding selection of contempo-

rary contexts, and considering the objections raised above, we may be

inclined to return to our conventional, historical survey course52. It has


51 Reynolds refers to the (very useful) text collection The Life of Buddhism, ed. FrankE. Reynolds, Jason A. Carbine (Berkeley et al.: University of California Press, 2000).

52 It is reasonable to follow the historical developments in their proper historical course,

but with caution. Gómez remarks correctly: “The challenge of the future, however, willbe to find a way to retain the obvious pedagogical advantages of a chronological matrix



the advantage of providing students with a common basic knowledge of the

beginnings and the historical development of Buddhism, and it also serves

as a basis for further studies. This general survey seems to be crucial

for liberal education, for otherwise students would face the complexity of

Buddhism without any point of reference. But as Reynolds rightly

complains, the conventional survey course too has serious weaknesses.

With such a course, one could be tempted to neglect contemporary prac-

tice, to perpetuate a 19th century scholarly framework, and to cement a

secondary canon of texts that has proved to be partial and biased. If we

intend to maintain the general concept of the historical survey course, itneeds to be modified.

Modifications should address what I call the horizontal and the verti-

cal complexities of Buddhism. Making students aware of the horizontal

complexity means to demonstrate, by way of example, that at every point

in history, ‘Buddhism’ is a complex phenomenon. For instance, to illus-

trate the complexity of practices and beliefs of early Buddhist laypeople,

an instructor could confront the ‘classical’ readings with other passages

from the Pali canon that undermine the alleged consistent image of the

laity. Similarly, in other areas the secondary canon can be confronted

with equally undermining data: with passages from non-canonical texts,

with inscriptional records, with artistic accounts, and the like.

Demonstrating the vertical complexity means to make students aware

of the complex nature of historical developments. To begin with, they

must realize that the many forms of contemporary Buddhist practice

represent merely a small portion of the multifarious ways in which Bud-

dhism has taken shape throughout its history. Since the majority of those

religious expressions is accessible through textual sources53, discussing


while we replace the implicit universal linear narrative with a narrative that is neither cul-minationistic nor atomistic.” Gómez, “Unspoken Paradigms…,” p. 203.

53 In Jan Nattier’s words: “The intense and ongoing use of written sources thus willalways be a central part of Buddhist Studies, stemming from the simple fact that most of the Buddhists who have ever lived are no longer with us today. If we wish to hear their voices, we must do so through the surviving texts — including, as Gregory Schopen hasso eloquently argued, not just scriptural texts but also inscriptions, archaeological remains,and artistic data.” Nattier, “Buddhist Studies in the Post-Colonial Age,” p. 483. For a

defense of the historical-philological method in Buddhist Studies, cf. also Tom J.F. Tille-mans, “Remarks on Philology,” JIABS 18 (1995), pp. 269-277.



the conditional nature of texts is crucial. Students must understand that

canonical texts, for example, are not a given divine manifestation but a

product of complex historical controversies, which also include power

relations54.

For demonstrating vertical complexity, it is also important to examine

how history has shaped the present. By way of example, I again draw on

the Buddhist laity. Modern Western Buddhism is largely a lay movement,

but Western converts are not very interested in accumulating merit and

rebirth in heaven; they prefer meditation and insight55. This preference

is determined by, among other factors, the scope of earlier generations of scholars and their particular way of presenting Buddhism to Western read-

ers; had they focused on rebirth in heaven, or had they merely presented

the two goals side by side, Buddhism would probably have gained less

attention among seekers in the West56. The observation that the canoni-

cal texts contain various soteriological goals thus reveals the biased per-

spective of our scholarly ancestors; and at the same time, it helps us

understand how that biased perspective has again shaped contemporary

Western Buddhism. On the other hand, realizing that even the ancient

texts advocate the goal of rebirth in heaven may prevent students from

subscribing to the arrogant view that the accumulation of merit, manifested

in daily practices among contemporary Buddhists in Asia and among

immigrant groups in the West, represented a degenerate and diluted

version of Buddhism57. If we integrate, which we should, a glance at

contemporary practice in our modified survey course, being aware of the


54 For this, general reflections upon the term ‘canon’ and comparisons with processesof canonization in other religions can be useful; cf. Smith, “Sacred Persistence…” Another aspect worth mentioning are the circumstances under which canonical texts have first beenmade accessible to the Western world and the ways early scholars dealt with them.

55 Cf., for example, the interview with Jack Kornfield, a well-known American teacher of Theravada meditation, in: Jack Kornfield, Living Dharma: Teachings of Twelve Bud-

dhist Masters (Boston/London: Shambala, 1996), pp. 287-301. For other references, seemy “The Meeting of Traditions: Inter-Buddhist and Inter-Religious Relations in the West,” Journal of Global Buddhism 2 (2001), pp. 59-71 (online: http://www.globalbuddhism.org).

56 This Western interest in Buddhism has, of course, its own historical background,namely a critical stance towards the Christian churches and their alleged authoritarian anddogmatic claims, and the longing for a rational and individualistic religion that does not

require blind faith, an attitude connected with both Romanticism and Enlightenment.57 Cf. Southwold, Buddhism in Life…, pp. 202-212.



vertical complexity, of the complex historical circumstances that have

shaped today’s Buddhism, is imperative.

Conclusion

This paper has addressed four issues: the role of the Buddhist canon

and the canonization taking place within Buddhist Studies, both for

research and in teaching. Some scholars tend to discourage from study-

ing the Buddhist canon and aim at eliminating its role in teaching. I hope

to have shown that studying the Buddhist canon remains worthwhile initself and even more, helps understand better our own presuppositions in

the field. In addition, I have argued that although integrating contempo-

rary practice in the introductory course is necessary, the historical survey

course, which includes readings from the canonical texts, remains the

best option for providing a basis for further studies as well as for liberal

education in general.

Earlier generations of scholars were interested in the origins of Bud-

dhism and thus focused on the earliest, that is the canonical, texts. More-

over, in textbooks and anthologies they presented only a certain selection

of text passages and religious concepts, while excluding others. They

selected texts according to their interests which were determined by their

own culturally and personally, often ‘protestant’ backgrounds. In such a

way, they again ‘canonized’ the sources which for them represented orig-

inal or authentic Buddhism. For overcoming this — still influential —

canonization, Buddhist scholars have turned to other expressions of Bud-

dhist religiosity, particularly to contemporary religious practice. I have

argued that following this trend, Buddhist Studies runs the risk to further a new process of canonization which now excludes the Buddhist canon.

The fact that the issues argued for (diversity and practice) are present in

canonical texts too, is largely ignored, in part due to the inherited (‘can-

onized’) image of the canon.

The exclusion of the Buddhist canon is notably conspicuous in recent

discussions about teaching. The old, canonized sources for teaching

(anthologies and textbooks) that comprise Buddhist Studies’ secondary

canon are abandoned, in favor of accounts of contemporary religiouspractice. This trend of rejecting canonization for teaching entails an




anything-goes attitude which encourages the abandonment of common

standards and allows particularistic religious instruction into the classroom.

I have argued that in contrast to research, undergraduate education, par-

ticularly on the introductory level, needs a secondary canon. A common

basis of knowledge gives students some certainty in orientation, a first

frame of reference (which they may criticize and deconstruct at a later

point), and the capability of communicating with, and assessing the work

of other students and scholars in Buddhist Studies. But in addition to that,

I suggest that during the course, every now and then the ‘classical’ read-

ings should be supplemented and confronted with other, underminingdata. Thereby demonstrating the diversity and the historically conditioned

nature of the sources, an introductory course can make students aware of

the horizontal and the vertical complexity of Buddhism without with-

holding from them a common basis of knowledge.


Documents

Buddhist Canon by Freiberger